Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You know, Google, the web already had this feature

blog.vrypan.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 444 posts

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#41

Post by jacquesm »

redorb wrote: post #31
mapgrep wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"There is no "patent" on... creating a more durable (and by that I mean self sustainable) service which has the same capability." I'd love to hear why you believe going from a decentralized open shared system like RSS to a centralized proprietary system controlled by one corporation (Google+) is even conceivably more "durable." I'd bet $100 that Google+ sharing will be dead and buried long before RSS goes anywhere.

I wouldn't bet against a lot of money (google) shutting down something they have seemed to bet a lot on. I believe Google shutting down Google Reader already means that 'RSS has gone somewhere' or will on July 1.. [edit] I also think Google backing off the shutdown would show a lot of users that it does listen and is willing to continue running a sub-par unit instead of shutting it down.

> I wouldn't bet against a lot of money (google) shutting down something they have seemed to bet a lot on.

You mean like google wave?

Or checkout?

Or google buzz?

Or any one of a large number of other products / projects that are no longer.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#42

Post by DanBC »

kunai wrote: post #2

Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.)

1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click.

2) Small elements in UI: There is a teeny little grey drop-down arrow at the top of the Subscriptions list. I didn't see that for weeks, and the randomly changing order of the subscriptions menu drove me bonkers. Making that arrow bigger would be good.

3) Default to Uploads only: When I click a name in the subscriptions list I want to see the videos they've uploaded. I probably don't care about other videos they've liked. And if I do I can clicky the menu. Making me clicky the menu for something I do every time is sub-optimal.

4) Please god something for comments: Google and YouTube are full of smart people. Some kind of "poor comment quality" filter should be easy to implement. Allow youtubers to have no comments; full comments; or 'no poor comments'. (Maybe with a 1, 2, or 3 level setting). This would stop people posting "FIRST!!" and then getting into flamebaiting over it. It could stop some of the vile juvenile language use. (Seriously, I can string all those words together, but I can't show a nipple?) It's not a cure for poor comments, but it could help.

I don't know what iGoogle is. Seriously, I think I'm signed into it. Or maybe I signed out when I found out it was going.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with the MS thing. For years they've had "sweet spot" OSs. MSDOS 3.3 was good; MSDOS 6 was good. Win 3.11 for workgroups was good while the other win 3.1s were bad. Windows 98SE with plus pack (is that right?) was good, while all the others were okay. Windows 2000 was god tier. Windows ME was a crime.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#43

Post by jacquesm »

DanBC wrote: post #29

Honestly: Google isn't that bad. This article mentions a few things, and specifically mentions Google. But really many other companies and websites are doing similar things. I've been railing against anything other than pure HTML, CSS, and perhaps Javascript for years. I've obviously lost that argument a long time ago. But it's not Google who killed that model of the web. If anything Google is helping by helping to k…

> But really many other companies and websites are doing similar things.

That does not count though. Good or bad operates on a scale that is independent of what the norm is, it simply means there is better and worse. But on an absolute scale all the players could easily be bad.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#44

Post by doktrin »

DanBC wrote: post #42
kunai wrote: post #2

Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…

> Google and YouTube are full of smart people. Some kind of "poor comment quality" filter should be easy to implement.

This touches on something I actually feel deserves a second look, if only from an academic or sociological perspective.

I have never quite understood why Youtube appears to be the single largest (or, at least most prominent) internet cesspool. Comments there are routinely among the most vile I've seen anywhere, and I've never been able to rationalize a suitable explanation.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#45

Post by yanw »

Chrome never implemented RSS auto discovery.

Everyone else has a "walled garden" why must Google be different? and why should they - arguably the least “walled” of said gardens - suffer the "openness" brunt?

The fact that they are not investing in RSS tools doesn't mean they're against them, it's just not in their interest anymore, and so I come to the conclusion that this is yet another Google Reader lament, and I thought we've already had our fill of these on the HN front page.

It’s the same discussion all over again, If you've not found a Reader replacement by now, or at least had your eyes on a couple of replacement candidates then you're just being stubborn.

Google lets you export your feeds and that is why they are not "evil", not because they refuse to indefinitely maintain a service that isn't of interest to them.

Also the crux or that post is an opt in feature that you have to install as a browser extension, if you don't like it then avoid the extension, but then how is it any different than Facebook's 'like' buttons or any of the other social widgets that are cluttering the web?!

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#46

Post by NewAccnt »

doktrin wrote: post #39
NewAccnt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, has no obligation to support Reader. What they did to the RSS market was shady, indeed, but it is well within their rights and they did not do anything that would infringe on the rights of developers or users the way Apple does. Nobody has a right to make a profitable RSS service, and nobody can tell them they have to support RSS in place of their social network of choice Apple on the otherhand enforces a sin…

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think any criticism of Google automatically translates into tacit support of Apple. They [Apple] certainly have their warts, but this isn't about them at all. For my part, I share many of the frustrations voiced here. I can't stand Google's persistence in ensuring I'm constantly logged in, or Chrome's ever helpful reminder that I should sync it with my Google account…

It is support for Apple with the OP casually mentions Apple as being somehow better than Microsoft today then vaguely points to Windows 8 as if there were anything especially wrong with it from a moral point of view. IMHO, My post is more on topic than the OPs because I actually address the Google situation where the OP is just shallow insinuation and emotional appeal directed at Google.

I have yet to see any proof that Google has done anything shady with the information they collect from users that isn't mandated by law, while that is not true of Apple. That's probably the reason that people continue to trust them with their data while people trust Apple simply because it is trendy or easy.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#47

Post by redorb »

jacquesm wrote: post #41
redorb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't bet against a lot of money (google) shutting down something they have seemed to bet a lot on. I believe Google shutting down Google Reader already means that 'RSS has gone somewhere' or will on July 1.. [edit] I also think Google backing off the shutdown would show a lot of users that it does listen and is willing to continue running a sub-par unit instead of shutting it down.

> I wouldn't bet against a lot of money (google) shutting down something they have seemed to bet a lot on. You mean like google wave? Or checkout? Or google buzz? Or any one of a large number of other products / projects that are no longer.

I would hope to never disagree with you - a very smart fellow on here. I however believe Google has put multiplies more money and 'skin in the game' when it comes to Google+... examples of what I think are the way they are pushing it so aggressively by integrating it everywhere. Wave was a pretty large launch I'll admit - but it still felt like an experiment - It felt like to me Google has said publicly in many ways 'This is how we are competing with Facebook and we'll stick with it till it works' - pertaining to Google +

Google Buzz was lot softer launch and commitment...

Checkout is still alive right?

*I do miss wave, my friends and I (with office jobs)used it as a chat channel throughout the workday. We have since moved to hall.com - wave still beats hall though...

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#48

Post by _delirium »

gkoberger wrote: post #6
kunai wrote: post #2

Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…

Overstayed the web's welcome? I'm not convinced that's happened yet. I certainly don't disagree with your points, but it's moot. Normal users don't care about things like "privacy" or "neutrality" or "standards". If it works and is free, that's good enough. And the page views Google gets is testament to the fact that nobody outside of the HN-esque world has any issues with Google. Heck, I (and most people here) use G…

That's part of what makes this strategy a bit strange, because "normal" users don't care about or use Google+ either.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#49

Post by philwelch »

doktrin wrote: post #44
DanBC wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…

> Google and YouTube are full of smart people. Some kind of "poor comment quality" filter should be easy to implement. This touches on something I actually feel deserves a second look, if only from an academic or sociological perspective. I have never quite understood why Youtube appears to be the single largest (or, at least most prominent) internet cesspool. Comments there are routinely among the most vile I've see…

Mean correlates with stupid. More stupid people watch TV than read. YouTube is TV.

Re: You know, Google, the web already had this feature

#50

Post by zevyoura »

DanBC wrote: post #42
kunai wrote: post #2

Google has overstayed the web's welcome. What started out as a quirky, innovative company that bucked all of the suit-and-tie trends (see Microsoft, HP, even Apple in some regards) of Silicon Valley, has now turned into a monstrous calamity with no regard for its users. Up until 2009, it was breezy and beautiful, but right now, at this moment, it's a different story altogether. Don't be evil? Pfeh. The only thing lef…

What do they need to do to fix YouTube? (I'm really asking. I think some of it is broken, and maybe people can pass information onto YouTube people.) 1) Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click. 2) Small elements in UI: There…

> Default to 240: I want to be able to always watch videos in the worst resolution possible. I want the lightest bandwidth possible. I'd sometimes be happy with just the audio. It seems that I can't default to 240, no matter what I click.

Strange you mention this, because just minutes ago I changed a video to 240, and it prompted me to save my preference (the text was headlined with "Slow Connection?"). Maybe a new feature?

Post reply on HN